and perspective wise the 100mm is better , if we are discussing reproduction, naturalness of a heads shape, even better is 85mm.This basic photo knowledge if you have study perspective and portrait photo.

I agree with you.... longer lenses do make the ears seem bigger. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the typical distance that people from European cultures are apart while talking, corresponds to the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you use a wider lens it makes it look like you are too close and longer lenses make it look like you are too far away.

Perhaps this explains Prince Charles.... Paparatzi use LONG lenses to take his picture... REALLY LONG lenses..

If you cannot display a single photo PBD, I continue to lol at you because since I cannot take you seriously. XD

You can't take me seriously? Really? You are the one who claims a "unique look", but can't actually show it. I have displayed four images, the only one you commented on as not being the 135, was from the 135, others have also displayed images. What difference does it make where the images come from? I think the only person who hasn't now got the point by now is you. You can continue with the personal attacks, like I said, it doesn't worry me in the slightest, but you are showing yourself and your opinions up for the pointless fallacies they are.

and perspective wise the 100mm is better , if we are discussing reproduction, naturalness of a heads shape, even better is 85mm.This basic photo knowledge if you have study perspective and portrait photo.

I agree with you.... longer lenses do make the ears seem bigger. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the typical distance that people from European cultures are apart while talking, corresponds to the angle of view of a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you use a wider lens it makes it look like you are too close and longer lenses make it look like you are too far away.

Perhaps this explains Prince Charles.... Paparatzi use LONG lenses to take his picture... REALLY LONG lenses..

not as long as the ones they use to shoot princess kate when she's nuding it up!

Oh I am sorry, I have made a silly mistake, for the last nine pages I mistook you for a knowledgeable photographer that knew his equipment and came to forums like this to spread the deep understanding you have for your craft, all the while giving unbiased opinions and astute insight to the technical aspects that allude and confuse the less experienced. I was wrong.

I don't know how much clearer I can demonstrate this, explain this, and many others agreed on this. PBD has shown no photos or portraits to prove that he's used the gear in question to the OP. Not a single photo. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

I had been contemplating both as well. The 100L has the advantage of being a good portrait lens AND a very good macro lens. However, I decided to go with the 135L. Why? Because it's a focal length that I'm more accustomed to for portraits and since portraits were the main objective I decided to go with the hammer-over-swiss-army-knife approach. If the main goal had been macros I would have looked at it the other way.Both are excellent lenses and (don't tell Canon that) really good value - if not a bargain compared to how much other very very good lenses cost.For me personally, the IS in the 100L counts as a negative so that was another (small) factor.

I'm quite happy with the 135 and it performs really well. It's so sharp that at times you might want to carefully evaluate in post processing if you really want it that sharp depending on the subject...The bokeh is probably as good as it gets.

That being said: I may add the 100L at some point as well - as a macro lens. But since I'm not very interested in macro work at the moment it's somewhat lower on my list. And even then I may actually go with the TS-E 90 to cover that...

Would you mind explaining why IS on the 100 counts as a negative?

More stuff that you pay for, more stuff that breaks eventually and I personally see absolutely no use for IS other than increasing the keeper rate on borderline useful snapshots in low light perhaps. It's not a replacement for a tripod in situations where you'd want one. And it doesn't help when things are moving around.

Got it. Then I'm a bit confused as to why you were comparing the 135 to the 100 L rather than the significantly cheaper, but still optically exceptional 100 macro. For me, the excellent hybrid IS and weather sealing of the L are worth the difference...

So far you have committed to two images from eight, I wonder if you got any right from eight, I'll tell you which of my post were which in a couple of days, Plamen will have to tell us his.

I do not want to get into this dispute and I did not even follow it carefully.

I just want to mention that all images I posted were taken with the 135L wide open on FF. You cannot take those images with the 100L. The 135L has 1.89x the diameter (the physical aperture) of the 100L and that matters. It is close to 2 stop advantage, loosely speaking. It has the best bokeh I have seen but the 100L has surprisingly good bokeh as well.

If you take a head and shoulders shot, f/2 or even f/2.8 may be too much. But full body and background not too far - the 135L cannot be replaced by the 100L

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D. I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots. The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet. I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that. Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L? I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

Quote

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.

I did extensive and even obsessive testing and sought out multiple sources to confirm my findings for that conclusion. Just because your baseless oppinions conflict with my well researched ones, doesn't make what I say BS. In fact it makes you extremely foolish.

The fact that the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro has harsh bokeh past macro distances was confirmed by no less than two Canon reps when I was testing this lens as a portrait lens. Canon's stance is that this lens has harsh bokeh as a result of it's tuning for macro purposes. The bokeh is tuned to be the most pleasing as macro distances and becomes harsh past those distances as a tradeoff.

In fact the 100mm macro is tuned in every conceivable dimension from it's most basic design to be very specifically used primarily for macro work, and as a result has tradeoffs.

Here's a comparison at an identical focal length and aperture. Notice how the OOF highlights look like laser beams, and the background is generally the opposite of buttery, but instead very crunchy and contrasty? That crunch is a result of the tuning the lens underwent to maximize macro detail, I'm told, which gives it extremely strange spherical abberations at normal focal lengths that are generally considered unacceptable. I'm not saying that this lens cannot be used to take good portraits, I've seen plenty of good ones taken with it, and I've even taken great portraits with it, I'm just saying that it should not be your first pick. (And might I remind you that that oppinion is echoed by Canon)

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue...

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has the same issue. Meanwhile my 14 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in, they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

All other arguments aside, I've soured on the 100L for the reason that the "soft focus" issue cannot be repaired by Canon. I sent mine in with a short explanation how to test it. $208.93 later it is exactly the same as before. And Canon USA says they need my 5D3 body in order to fix it despite me telling them I tried another 100L on my 5D3 and it does not have the issue and I also tried the bad 100L on another body and it still has the issue...

And Canon refuses to refund for a "repair" job that did nothing.

The sad part is, the lens is 14 months old, I've now spent another $208.93 and it stil has issues. Meanwhile my 16 month old Sigma 50 had issues, I sent it in and they fixed for free and it actually works correctly now.

The trick with Canon service dissatisfaction is to send it back, they won't give you your money back but there is a 6 month warranty on the repair, if it still behaves badly then send it back, say the repair is unsatisfactory. Don't stop at the second or third person you talk to either. Both my 16-35 and 24-70 have been in three times, it is hassle and costs postage one way, but it does get sorted in the end, well mine always have been.

I'm just going to contest the charge on my card. I'm not wasting any more time on it and I'm darn sure not sending those idiots my 5D3 body.

Might be more valid if they were samples of the same area! It is not difficult to make the 135 look pretty bad in the background too, just see the image I posted earlier for an example, even RLP said there was no way that was his precious 135........

As far as I know, your portfolio/photos are too precious for anyone to see.

Although its utterly useless to get into this discussion, since both sides have dug their heels deep. However, 1) Technically, any lens could be used as a portrait lens, even 8 mm. It's between art and artist; rest is irrelevant. So comparing 100 mm f/2.8 L macro IS vs 135 mm f/2 L for portraits is irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges.2) That said, 85 mm f/1.2 L and 135 mm f/2 L are generally considered best portrait lenses in canon lineup.3) Its foolish to undermine extra light gathering ability of lens even 1/2 a stop. Photography is about manipulating light; and mostly its limiting. More currency gives you better options. 4) From what I have seen (I looked at all photos posted), RL photo is better photographer than privatebydesign. Of course s/he may have hidden masterpieces and its my personal opinion.I hope it brings peace here.

In the old film days, Leica designate the 90mm lenses as portrait lens and designate the 135 mm lenses as telephoto lens. Canon does not make any 90mm lenses. Therefore Canon designate the 100mm lens as portrait lens and 135mm lenses as telephoto lens. The reason: 90mm give us the "proper perspective" while 135mm tends to compact the facial feature at portrait (head and upper body) composition.